I think its a sin to cause a wedge between a son and a father especially when the relationship was strained to begin with.

I think its a sin to sleep with a married man and to display the atrocious act to the wife and child.

I think its a sin that she participated and probably even encouraged John to use heroin.

I think its a sin to encourage your husband to sleep with other women.

I think her musics a sin for sure.

etc,,,

Hey, I'm a Christian and I agree with you. My point is that we are noone to judge, John and Yoko are human as anybody. People should just care about the art and not about the artist's life. That's the problem when people idolize a star, they pretend him/her to be perfect. I like these John's words:

"When real music comes to me - the music of the spheres, the music that surpasses understanding - that has nothing to do with me, cause I'm just the channel. The only joy for me is for it to be given to me, and to transcribe it like a medium... those moments are what I live for."

We should look at John as a brother, an equal, not an idol. He had a gift, he was special, we all are, we all shine on.

nimrod

Hey, I'm a Christian and I agree with you. My point is that we are noone to judge, John and Yoko are human as anybody. People should just care about the art and not about the artist's life. That's the problem when people idolize a star, they pretend him/her to be perfect. I like these John's words:

"When real music comes to me - the music of the spheres, the music that surpasses understanding - that has nothing to do with me, cause I'm just the channel. The only joy for me is for it to be given to me, and to transcribe it like a medium... those moments are what I live for."

We should look at John as a brother, an equal, not an idol. He had a gift, he was special, we all are, we all shine on.

*yawn* there is no way to rationalize such demented and thick pc behavior, possibly because of misinterpreted "sour grapesian" mentality. like john lennon said, one thing you can't hide is when you're crippled inside.

Not to completely derail this train wreck thread even further, but what is your take on the Heather Mills bashing that is done all over Beatle/McCartney fandom?

Surely there is more, and clearer, evidence of her being what the "haters" accuse Yoko of being.

Or is it easier to judge because we've all lived through Heather Mills, and chances are those whom lived through ALL of the Yoko-Lennon relationship from Day One that it was made public are outnumbered in forums like this one.

Therefore most of 2012's Yoko hate is going off of accounts of differing levels of authenticity or trustworthiness, memories faded and altered thanks to various..."ehem" reasons, and the sad fact that Yoko has been a widow since 12/8/1980 so her side is predominant in the mass information superhighway age.

People have to remember, Ronald Reagan ran on a Libertarianish platform similar to Ron Paul. Actually fight inflation through stopping the growth in the money supply, Regan favored the gold standard and let Ron Paul chair the commission. He was pro cutting taxes and was pro American sovereignty. Lennon didn't really but, it seems, into party labels. Unfortunately, Mr. CIA Bush hijacked the Reagan presidency and instigated Iran-Contra, etc. Reagan more or less became a teleprompter reader after his assassination attempt. Read about the Hinckley/Bush connection.http://www.infowars.com/print/Bush/reagan_libertythink.htm

People have to remember, Ronald Reagan ran on a Libertarianish platform similar to Ron Paul. Actually fight inflation through stopping the growth in the money supply, Regan favored the gold standard and let Ron Paul chair the commission. He was pro cutting taxes and was pro American sovereignty. Lennon didn't really but, it seems, into party labels. Unfortunately, Mr. CIA Bush hijacked the Reagan presidency and instigated Iran-Contra, etc. Reagan more or less became a teleprompter reader after his assassination attempt. Read about the Hinckley/Bush connection.http://www.infowars.com/print/Bush/reagan_libertythink.htm

Quote

One fellow Catcher in the Rye devotee and .38 caliber enthusiast -- and 'guest' of WorldVision -- was alleged (apparent?) Lennon assassin Mark David Chapman.

What in the what now?

How can someone be alleged if after shooting a man, point blank, just sits down calmly and waits to be apprehended?

To say nothing about his rantings and ramblings through the years about why he DID it and even admitted to wanting to take out the other three Beatles.

Was the government out to get John Lennon in the early 1970s? Sure, we know this because of the VERY public immigration battles.

But this is too far flung to suggest Lennon's murder 5 years after his vindication, as he is coming back to the recording studio for the first time in those 5 years, and if a cabal was that all powerful and all knowing, they'd get copies of his recordings and notice that he wasn't the angry political guy that he was back in the early 1970s, was part of an orchestrated plot.

Of course that says nothing about the question "why Lennon?" Honestly, I know how the f*** it sounds and believe me I am NOT advocating anything like this, but I can see assassinations of heads of state or those in political power or people in the social/political landscape getting too big for their britches (MLK, Malcom X) according to lunatic fringes. But an entertainer? And a mellowed and dried out one at that. What would the government be afraid of the 1980 Lennon now that whatever "movement" was going on in the late 1960s and early 1970s had long passed. Oh sure, Lennon would have stood up with the No Nukes brigade, sung at the various Aid concerts (though he'd have some snide remark about the crass, commercialization of it all) and would have stood with the Occupy movement, but what would make anything Lennon said or did different than oh say, The Man In Black, Johnny Cash?

And no, don't tell me to expand my mind on this, there is no way you can convince me that John Lennon was the victim of anything other than a mentally unstable person. You'd have a better shot at convincing me that Paul McCartney really did die in an auto accident in 64 or whenever the hell the Paul Is Dead rumors generally say is the date of Paul's "demise" than John Lennon being the victim of a US Government conspiracy.

Answer this question, what POSSIBLE political gain could there have been by killing Lennon in 1980?

And if their goal was to silence his voice and his political nature of his songs, heh heh, well that clearly failed. If anything Lennon = Political Crusader Through Songs GREW with his sudden passing, as he was starting to drift from that kind of angry person of youth.

Hell, why was Lennon the only target? Surely there were others picking up that social/political crusader mantle that John left long ago by 1980, some still to THIS DAY pepper their music and albums with the same hard edged social and political commentary that would have fit nicely in Sometime In New York City. And they are very much still alive.

Please answer those questions and help me understand why a SIMPLE ENTERTAINER would be chosen for assassination by the US Government?

John had a real following. People weren't buying into the Democrat/Republican false paradigm. He questioned all of the motives. He wasn't a useful idiot liberal who hates one side when they do something wrong but praise the other side when they do the same. Like the Hollywood "liberals" who support war when Obama does it but bash Bush when he does it. The fact that they had FBI files on him, they had been following him and threatening him is evidence and the motives are there. Think about in the early 70's when he was speaking out against Nixon and how Nixon and Hoover were running scared.